During the past 4 months, I have been working on the Flipkart desktop website team. For me it meant finally working on code at scale. If there was any place where TDD would be appreciated, it was here, on user facing critical code. The tests were being written on a setup of Karma, Mocha, Sinon and Enzyme. It worked pretty great, but the major peeve for all of us, was that, it was so slow!

The team had already tried using Jest before, had faced many issues with the automocking and given up. But then Jest made a turnaround and with a great community effort released improved and new versions. From all the blogposts, we found that Jest’s main focus was testing performance and something new called “Snapshot testing”. Also, mainly it promised to be “Painless JavaScript Testing”. Jest can mostly work for testing in any JavaScript framework or environment. Also, its a known fact that Jest uses itself to test it’s codebase.

This post wants to be an FAQ guide which would have given us extra help during this transition.


The FAQs are categorised by the facet of testing that they cover. These may also apply to any testing in general.

Fundamentally speaking

Why should we move to Jest when we already have a working setup?

A move to Jest would mean a somewhat change in paradigm and would involve team effort. We justified the effort with the following reasons

  • Jest is way faster than our current setup. It runs test suites in a parallel and the community is focused on improving developer experience through performance.
  • I really liked the interactive CLI that comes with it. In watch mode, Jest runs only the tests associated with your code changes. But it allows you to interact with the tests by providing functionality to update snapshots, search for a particular suite, run all tests if you want to.
  • Great documentation
  • Snapshot testing for components. It is kind of tailor made for React apps.
  • Great defaults meaning “Zero” configuration. Running jest alone would be enough to run test files. Mocking is not a marriage of complexity and confusion.
  • Existing tests could be easily migrated manually or through automated codemods

What about testing on the browser?

Yes, the earlier setup opened a chromium browser and tested our components. It was pretty cool actually. But, it was one of the things that made executing tests slow for us. Being priviledged enough to have manual QA, we decided to forego this functionality.

For more reasoning, you should read this by @cpojer on why Facebook doesn’t need them. Also, we are open to using React storybook in the future, which I think has potential for browser testing.

What is Snapshot testing? Will it really help?

Snapshot testing, is a procedure in which, Jest generates readable snapshots of your component’s view. A snapshot is basically a text file with xml, which acts like the source of your view, at that point in your testcase. Different snapshots can be created with different props to your components.

Snapshots can be saved after simulating events like click and hover. The point would be to save the expected view of your component which is a function of some mock data. If in the future, a developer changes your component, Jest would create a new snapshot of the component and compare it with the saved snapshot. If there is a change in view, it will alert the developer and she will have to tell Jest to save this new snapshot. Since the snapshot is committed to version control, it will show up in a code review and the changes can be approved accordingly. While we still have reservations of, if its actually feasible to review large changes in the snapshot, I definitely think this enriches the content of a code review.(Edit @cpojer said in this comment that snapshots are even more powerful!)

Implementation Questions

How do I test my React+Redux code?

We have been following an approach where we test each of the moving parts independently.


A React component is a view only component, with some event handling and some local state. It is connected to the Redux store for state and actions. We test the base component, which is free of Redux. For a component like,


import React, {Component} from 'react';
import {connect} from 'react-redux';

export class MyComponent extends Component {
    constructor () {
    this.state = {
        localProp: 'Default'
    handleClick = () => {
        localProp: 'After click'
    render () {
    return (<div>
        <div onClick={this.handleClick}>Click me</div>

export default connect(reduxState => ({reduxProp: reduxState.prop}) )(MyComponent)


// needed for jsx
import React from 'react';
// import the named export
import {MyComponent} from './my-component';
// enzyme has rendering utils
import {shallow} from 'enzyme';
// needed to create snapshot
import {shallowToJson} from 'enzyme-to-json';

describe('<MyComponent />', () => {
    let component;
    // create an instance of MyComponent before each test
    beforeEach(() => {
        component = shallow(<MyComponent reduxProp="A test prop" />);
    // test rendering expectations
    it('should render well', () => {
        // DOM test
        expect(component.contains(<div>A test prop</div>)).toBe(true);
        // Match snapshots (creates the first time)
    // test the action
    it('should change text after click', () => {
        //find particular DOM and simulate click
        test expectation after click is done
        expect(component.text().indexOf('After click') > -1).toBe(true);
        // match snapshot because view changed.


Reducers, being pure functions, are ridiculously easy to test. The redux docs shows how to do this.


We used the recommended technique, but instead of using nock we decided to mock the fetch api with Jest’s easy mocking system.


import configureMockStore from 'redux-mock-store';
import thunk from 'redux-thunk';
import fetchMock from 'fetch-mock';

export const runsynctest = ({testName, expectedAction, fn, params}) => {
    it(testName, () => {
        expect(fn.call(null, ...params)).toEqual(expectedAction);
export const runasynctest = ({testName, expectedActions, fn, params}) => {
    const middlewares = [ thunk ];
    const mockStore = configureMockStore(middlewares);
    const store = mockStore();
    fetchMock.mock('*', params); // This can be customised
    it(testName, () => {
    return store
        .dispatch(fn.call(null, ...params))
        .then(args => {


import { runasynctest, runsynctest } from './actionsUtil';
// fetchVal is your typical fetch action which returns a promise
import { fetchVal } from '../my-actions';
import * as types from 'constants/my-constants';

describe('async-actions', () => {
        testName: 'should simulate fetch action',
        expectedActions: [
        { type: types.GET__REQUEST },
            type: types.GET__SUCCESS,
            pids: [1, 2]
        fn: fetchVal,
        params: [[1, 2]]

Components with Actions

If in the above example for MyComponent’s testing, the handleClick were to send actions with redux like



handleClick = event => {



describe('<MyComponent />', () => {
    it('should call fetchVal action', () => {
    const mockFetchVal = jest.mock();
    const component = mount(<MyComponent fetchValAction={mockFetchVal}/>);

tldr; Various solutions can be adopted. Choose whichever suits your environment.

How do I test asynchronous functions?

The Jest docs has a tutorial on asynchronous testing. Converting them to Promises works too.

How to simulate window events?

We used jsdom to get a DOM that works with Node.js. We set it up for the project at Jest’s setupFile.


const jsdom = require('jsdom');

const documentHTML = '<!doctype html><html><body><div id="root"></div></body></html>';
global.document = jsdom.jsdom(documentHTML);
global.window = document.parentWindow;
global.window.resizeTo = (width, height) => {
	global.window.innerWidth = width || global.window.innerWidth;
	global.window.innerHeight = width || global.window.innerHeight;
	global.window.dispatchEvent(new Event('resize'));
global.Promise = require.requireActual('promise');

Now we can simulate resize by the mock method above. So we have tests like below.


  The test below checks if snapshots were the same before and after resizes.
  You can also test for other window events like scroll in this manner.
it('should resize properly', () => {
  const props = { highlights: true };
  const component = mount(<MyComponent {...props} />, {attachTo: document.getElementById('root')});

I can’t get PostCSS to work!

This was one area where Jest fell short of expectations. karma allows you directly put in webpack transformations onto the configuration. Jest has equivalent configuration which is mapped to webpack config. But we found it to be adequate for our needs except that we could not get PostCSS plugins to work. Babel preprocessing is done out of the box using babel-jest which comes bundled with Jest in the latest version. Jest can support some preprocessors, but somehow cannot support PostCSS as it has asynchronous plugins. So we had to use this proxy called identity-obj-proxy to proxy our styles with the given className.

An alternative would be to try this advice to preprocess all the css for easy consumption.

For example for JSX,

<div className={styles['button-class']}>Click</div>

the below snapshot is generated,

<div className='button-class'>Click</div>

It does not allow you to test for true styles, only classNames. But, its a tradeoff we have made.

Can I calculate coverage?

I’m glad you asked the question! Coverage stats are inbuilt within Jest. No configuration is required. jest --coverage does it. The downside is that it considerably slows down your test runs. Hence we don’t keep it on during development. There are also really cool features like coverage thresholds. You can learn this by watching this excellent video on Egghead.io by @kentcdodds.


Its been a couple of weeks since we started using Jest. Code Coverage is slowly growing within the team. However we have configured our PR builds to fail if existing tests fail, that includes snapshots. In the future, we plan to have coverage thresholds too!

PS - Thanks to @kosamari for the encouragement, @saha_varsha for actually battle testing the above scripts, @cpojer for the review and active involvement and @rahulcs for the patient review!

blog comments powered by Disqus


08 December 2016